4.6 Article

Co-registration of magnetoencephalography with magnetic resonance imaging using bite-bar-based fiducials and surface-matching

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 115, 期 3, 页码 691-698

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2003.10.023

关键词

MEG-MRI co-registration; bite-bar; fiducial localization error; target registration error; Monte Carlo simulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To introduce a new technique for co-registration of Magnetoencephalography (MEG) with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We compare the accuracy of a new bite-bar with fixed fiducials to a previous technique whereby fiducial coils were attached proximal to landmarks on the skull. Methods: A bite-bar with fixed fiducial coils is used to determine the position of the head in the MEG co-ordinate system. Co-registration is performed by a surface-matching technique. The advantage of fixing the coils is that the co-ordinate system is not based upon arbitrary and operator dependent fiducial points that are attached to landmarks (e.g. nasion and the preauricular points), but rather on those that are permanently fixed in relation to the skull. Results: As a consequence of minimizing coil movement during digitization, errors in localization of the coils are significantly reduced, as shown by a randomization test. Displacement of the bite-bar caused by removal and repositioning between MEG recordings is minimal (similar to0.5 mm), and dipole localization accuracy of a somatosensory mapping paradigm shows a repeatability of similar to 5 mm. The overall accuracy of the new procedure is greatly improved compared to the previous technique. Conclusions: The test-retest reliability and accuracy of target localization with the new design is superior to techniques that incorporate anatomical-based fiducial points or coils placed on the circumference of the head. (C) 2003 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据